The politics of hoodie wearing

http://bmorrett.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/the-race-war-on-whites-and-why-its-ignored/

Quote:

What if I told you that a white supremacist group held a conference call demanding a day of action to spill the blood of blacks and Latinos in America?

Your reaction would be one of absolute horror. You would immediately decry the racist organization as having no place in our society and demand that the organization be shamed and shunned by the media — and rightly so.

Yet, the opposite takes place on a regular basis – if not daily. Black supremacist groups like the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) consistently call for blood shed of whites and no one thinks twice. Today, April 9th, was deemed the “Day of Action” by the NBPP of Tampa and is a designated day to boot up against the “pink people” and “honkies.”

You read correctly – listen to the audio – they actually said “pink people” and called for violence.

Where is the outrage? For years the NBPP, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and others have demonized white Americans for being, well, white. I know, the hypocrisy is almost too much to bear. The CBC does a nice job of drumming up racial strife with unfounded comments like those of Andre Jackson when he said that the tea party wants to see blacks “hanging on a tree.”

That’s funny since I’ve never heard of a Tea Party conference call where they talked about spilling blood or lynchings. However, there are dozens of videos and recordings of black power groups calling for the death or blood of whites regardless of whether they are guilty of a crime or not.

Why the double standard?

The answer is simple – white guilt. White Americans still feel morally responsible for slavery despite those generations having long since passed away. Take the case of Trayvon Martin – a Latino shot a black man, and whites are being blamed en masse through rallies across the nation. You may be a white middle-schooler in Montana, but somehow the NBPP and other black power groups would have society believe that it’s your fault that Trayvon died........

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

The news has confirmed that as of 90 mins ago, he is in custody at FL's Seminole County courthouse.
He's behind bars chraged with 2nd Degree Murder. The DA feels they now have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.

Presumably, Mr. Z will be OK,
but I hope that his lawyer is working pro bono.

David

0 Replies

I hope they're charging whatever their standard rate is. Maybe then the next guy who wants to go full cowboy on us will think twice (or three or four times) before he draws and fires.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I hope they're charging whatever their standard rate is.
Maybe then the next guy who wants to go full cowboy on us will think twice (or three or four times) before he draws and fires.

Its OK. Thay said on the CBS News
that his lawyer is giving him a FREE defense.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I hope they're charging whatever their standard rate is.
Maybe then the next guy who wants to go full cowboy on us will think twice
(or three or four times) before he draws and fires.

"He who hesitates is lost."
I remember when I got out of the hospital
after abdominal surgery in 2005. It had been a while until
I had re-gained the strength to walk. Just remaining vertical
was a challenge. I remember thinking how bad off I 'd be
if I got into a fight. My friend, Donald, is elderly. He walks
with a cane. He was one of my tenants for a few years,
about 40 years ago. After he fought off some muggers,
who attacked him in the subway, he studied the martial arts for a few years.
Recently, I asked him whether he coud apply his defensive skills
if he or his wife or child were violently attacked. He admitted
that he cannot, without his gun. His ability does not extend beyond walking slowly, carefully.

If he were attacked, as Mr. Z apparently was, he 'd not be able to know
whether the next impact upon him woud result in grave and permanent injury,
possibly including death. U don 't know, until its too late.
"He who hesitates is lost" Jack's exhortations to the contrary notwithstanding.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

"He who hesitates is lost."

I guess based on your story, your friend Donald needs to shoot someone that is just following him since he won't have a chance to get his gun out if actually attacked.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

"He who hesitates is lost."

parados wrote:

I guess based on your story, your friend Donald needs to shoot someone that is just following him
since he won't have a chance to get his gun out if actually attacked.

Like the rest of us,
Don has always been followed almost every day of his life.
That is part of the human experience, especially in densely populated areas.
He has lived most of his life in NY.
MAYBE if u walk at around 2AM, u can be alone out there
and no one will follow u. ( I woudn't bet on it.)
Donald KNOWS that there is nothing morally nor legally rong,
nor threatening about being followed. If he had ever been hostile
toward anyone who has followed him, he 'd probably have told me about it. He did not.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

If Don lives in NYC then either he is a criminal or he will never have the ability to pull a gun if attacked.

So what the heck was your example supposed to be? An exercise in fantastic exaggeration on your part?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If Don lives in NYC then either he is a criminal

WHICH crime do u have in mind ???????

parados wrote:

or he will never have the ability to pull a gun if attacked.

Really?? Y not????

parados wrote:

So what the heck was your example supposed to be?

I was disproving the allegation that fist fights
were inconsequential and that guns shud not be defensively used by victims thereof.

parados wrote:

An exercise in fantastic exaggeration on your part?

Please explain how that is an "exaggeration" ???

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

parados wrote:
If Don lives in NYC then either he is a criminal
WHICH crime do u have in mind ???????

Carrying a gun in NYC without a permit would make him a criminal.

Quote:

parados wrote:
or he will never have the ability to pull a gun if attacked.
Really?? Y not????

Since he doesn't appear to have a specific need to carry a gun other than YOUR unreasonable fear, it is unlikely he has a permit so Don won't be pulling a gun unless he is committing a crime by carrying it.

Quote:

parados wrote:
So what the heck was your example supposed to be?
I was disproving the allegation that fist fights
were inconsequential and that guns shud not be defensively used by victims thereof.

parados wrote:
An exercise in fantastic exaggeration on your part?

Please explain how that is an "exaggeration" ???

David

My explanation is above. Unless and until you explain how Don is legally capable of carrying a gun in NYC your talking out of you ass.

1 Reply

To equate simply walking along behind someone on the street, which David seems to use for "following" versus someone who stares at you from his car for long enough to make you nervous, and then, when you run away from him, gets out of his car, runs after you, and has a pistol as well, and then, though obviously not a cop or someone licensed by society specifically to confront you, does in fact confront you, is a huge logical leap.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

To equate simply walking along behind someone on the street, which David seems to use for "following" versus someone who stares at you from his car for long enough to make you nervous, and then, when you run away from him, gets out of his car, runs after you, and has a pistol as well, and then, though obviously not a cop or someone licensed by society specifically to confront you, does in fact confront you, is a huge logical leap.

It's a big leap to ascribe logic and even common decency to David.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

To equate simply walking along behind someone on the street, which David seems to use for "following" versus someone who stares at you from his car for long enough to make you nervous, and then, when you run away from him, gets out of his car, runs after you,

Is THAT a known fact, or r u guessing ?

MontereyJack wrote:

and has a pistol as well, and then, though obviously not a cop [???? HOW is not being a cop "obviously"] or someone licensed by society specifically to confront you, does in fact confront you, is a huge logical leap.

He is licensed by freedom of speech; screw society.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I see you were talking out of your ass with your friend Don.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If Don lives in NYC then either he is a criminal

OmSigDAVID wrote:

WHICH crime do u have in mind ???????

parados wrote:

Carrying a gun in NYC without a permit would make him a criminal.

O, so u r informing us of the status of Don's licensure, huh ?
Have u been following Don and spying on him, that u know his affairs??
( to say nothing of the effect of the 2nd Amendment, as explained
by the USSC in HELLER and in McDONALD )

parados wrote:

or he will never have the ability to pull a gun if attacked.

DAVID wrote:

Really?? Y not????

parados wrote:

Since he doesn't appear to have a specific need
to carry a gun other than YOUR unreasonable fear,

U tell us, do u, that robbery does NOT occur in the streets,
and therefore, apprehension thereof is UNREASONABLE??
He was already mugged 1ce, maybe about 4O years ago.
He fought back and scared off the muggers.
I guess u assert that he can never be mugged again, for some reason.

parados wrote:

it is unlikely he has a permit so Don won't be pulling a gun
unless he is committing a crime by carrying it.

If I were defending that allegation,
I 'd argue that the USSC has set forth that we citizens HAVE
the individual right to keep and to carry guns, even tho the cases before it
did not involve armament in the streets; the clear text of the 2nd Amendment itself covers that.
Accordingly, a judgment in GOOD FAITH cannot result in a conviction
for merely exercising his Constitutional Right to carry guns or carry Bibles.

In the face of the HELLER and the McDONALD cases,
conviction of a crime for carrying a gun is an act of corruption.

parados wrote:

So what the heck was your example supposed to be?

I was disproving the allegation that fist fights
were inconsequential and that guns shud not be defensively used by victims thereof.

parados wrote:

An exercise in fantastic exaggeration on your part?

DAVID wrote:

Please explain how that is an "exaggeration" ???

David

parados wrote:

My explanation is above. Unless and until you explain how Don
is legally capable of carrying a gun in NYC your talking out of you ass.

Getting a gun license depends on your relations with the police, or a judge.
Don has good relations.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

O, so u r informing us of the status of Don's licensure, huh ?

Unless Don can give the police evidence of a specific threat, he won't have a license to carry in NYC.

Heller does NOT give anyone the ability to carry a gun on them in NYC. It only gives the right to keep a gun in the home in DC.

The fear of robbery is NOT a specific threat David. The police in NYC won't issue a carry permit just because someone is "frightened of being robbed."

Quote:

In the face of the HELLER and the McDONALD cases,
conviction of a crime for carrying a gun is an act of corruption.

And you claim you were a lawyer? What a ridiculous argument David. Heller has NEVER been applied to any state. It applies to FEDERAL areas, specifically DC since it only allows guns in the HOME.

1 Reply

@parados,

DAVID wrote:

O, so u r informing us of the status of Don's licensure, huh ?

parados wrote:

Unless Don can give the police evidence of a specific threat,
he won't have a license to carry in NYC.

I guess u failed to read my answer to u on this point.
I already said:

DAVID wrote:

Getting a gun license depends on your relations with the police, or a judge.
Don has good relations

parados wrote:

Heller does NOT give anyone the ability to carry a gun on them in NYC.
It only gives the right to keep a gun in the home in DC.

It looks like u did not get the point.
Try to follow along; I 'll try to spell it out:
Every judge swears that he will support the US Constitution.
That instrument protects " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . " because of the necessity of private militia.

The USSC explained in the HELLER case 554 US 290
that the 2 A recognizes the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
The Court said:
" Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved
in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community. . . .

We start therefore with a strong presumption that
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. . . .

* * * Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee the individual right
to possess and CARRY weapons in case of confrontation. "

[All emfasis has been added by David.]

parados wrote:

The fear of robbery is NOT a specific threat David.

Your rights under the Constitution do NOT depend upon the state of your emotions, Mr. Parados.
If I wanna read the NY Times or go to Church, my emotions remain my private business.

parados wrote:

The police in NYC won't issue a carry permit just because someone is "frightened of being robbed."

I 've already addressed that.

DAVID wrote:

In the face of the HELLER and the McDONALD cases,
conviction of a crime for carrying a gun is an act of corruption.

parados wrote:

And you claim you were a lawyer?
What a ridiculous argument David.
Heller has NEVER been applied to any state.

O, really??? Then I guess that it was not applied against Illinois in June of 2010, huh ??
In your opinion, McDONALD v. CHICAGO 561 U.S. 3025 counts for nothing, counsellor ??
Here is how it SHUD go, if the trial judge acts in good faith
with his oath to support the Constitution
and if he is not a hypocrit: defense counsel moves to dismiss
charge of gun possession for failure to state a cause of action,
in that defendant has the Constitutional right to carry guns.
The D.A. argues your point, that HELLER was limited to litigated facts
of gun possession in the home. After argument, the trial court rules
that in HELLER, the USSC has explained that the 2 A defends
individual rights, and it then proceeds to read the 2 A and to
directly apply its text ( "...bear arms... " ), dismissing the case on the merits,
after taking due cognizance of McDONALD v. CHICAGO ( supra ).

parados wrote:

It applies to FEDERAL areas, specifically DC since it only allows guns in the HOME.

A few days ago ( April 3, 2012 ),
Justice Scalia, who wrote the HELLER decision,
told me that: " in HELLER, we didn't say that you can ONLY carry guns in the home."

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Every judge swears that he will support the US Constitution.
That instrument protects " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . " because of the necessity of private militia.

So Don is in the militia?

0 Replies

after all i've read here, i've decided to support the politics of dancing instead of all this hoodie crap

0 Replies

The Three Legal Keys of the Trayvon Martin Affidavit

By David French
April 13, 2012 11:40 A.M. I read with great interest the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in the Trayvon Martin case (thanks, Robert, for linking). While the affidavit is quite brief and lacks detail, it does contain three key factual assertions, that — if proven — will vindicate those who called for Zimmerman’s arrest.

First, the affidavit clearly indicates that not only did Zimmerman follow Martin, he continued to follow Martin in spite of the dispatcher’s admonition to the contrary. The transcript seems somewhat ambiguous — initially indicating that Zimmerman followed Martin but later portions also seem to indicate that Zimmerman may have stopped, at least to continue communicating with the dispatcher. But that transcript, of course, is not the only relevant evidence on this point. There are Zimmerman’s statements to the police (which we haven’t seen), the statements from Martin’s girlfriend (which we also haven’t seen), and there is also (presumably) some degree of forensic evidence locating both the initial call and the actual scene of the shooting.

Second, the affidavit indicates that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin, but it’s agnostic on who initiated the “struggle.” Here’s the exact quote: “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” If the prosecutor can prove that Zimmerman continued his pursuit to the point of initiating a confrontation with Martin, then it will be very, very difficult for Zimmerman to claim a “stand your ground” defense. In fact, Martin would be entitled to stand his ground. In other words, if the prosecutor can prove that Zimmerman pursued and confronted Martin, Zimmerman will have a challenge in proving despite those facts that Martin was the true aggressor in the “struggle” that “ensued.”

Third, the affidavit states that Martin’s mother has identified the cries for help as coming from her son. This could be the piece of evidence that seals Zimmerman’s fate. Unless he (or another witness) can clearly contradict Martin’s mother — or her testimony is sufficiently debunked on cross examination — a mother’s testimony identifying her slain son’s voice is powerful indeed. And if that was Martin calling for help, then that effectively crushes any argument that it was Zimmerman who “reasonably” feared for his life.

When an armed man shoots an unarmed man, unless there are compelling facts to the contrary, charges are expected and routine. As I’ve watched this case unfold and heard arguments pro and con, I think there’s probable cause for an arrest (and it’s really not close). Whether there’s proof sufficient for conviction will be determined when we see the state’s case. As of today, we’ve just peeked under the curtain.

Quote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295942/three-legal-keys-trayvon-martin-affidavit-david-french

The article contains a link to the Affidavit of Probable Cause

I'm not that impressed with the fact that Martin's mother claims she recognizes Martin's voice as the one screaming on the tape. I've hear Zimmerman"s father say it's definately the voice of his son, and on the face of it there isn't a sound reason for believing a mother who wants to believe her son was innocent with a father who does as well.

In any case, the fact that Zimmerman has been charged doesn't at seem outrageous. Now the prosecution will need to prove those charges. Hopefully, there can be a fair trial...either way.

1 Reply

The politics of hoodie wearing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know